Hoven (2013: 78) sees Value Sensitive Design (VSD) as the culmination of a develop-ment that started at Stanford in 1970s. There the moral issues and values embedded in technology were a central aspect of study in Computer Science and since then there have been several encapsulations of the principles. Hoven recognizes VSD as formulated by Friedman, Kahn & Borning (2008), as one of the first frameworks concerned on integrat-ing values to design process and sees that other frameworks have later emerged, such as Values in Design and Values for Design. Manders-Huits (2011: 273) describes VSD emerging from studies regarding Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), which is congruent with the view of the evolution of VSD that Friedman, Kahn & Borning (2002: 1) present.
Friedman et al. (2008: 71; 2008: 85) see Computer Ethics, Social Informatics, Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, and Participatory Design as related approaches to VSD. In this thesis VSD was chosen as kernel theory directing the study as it has widespread usage in different fields of ICT for example Johri & Nair (2011), Mok & Hyysalo (2018), Dad-gar & Joshi (2015), Xu, Crossler & Bélanger (2012), Wynsberghe (2013), Alshammari
& Jung (2017), and Miller, Friendman, Jancke & Gill (2007). As the framework has evolved during a longer period, there exists constructive critique such as Manders-Huits (2011), Jacobs & Huldtgren (2018) or Borning & Muller (2012), which provide additional guidance on implementation.
Friedman et al. (2008: 69) define VSD as “theoretically grounded approach to the design of technology that accounts for human values in a principled and comprehensive manner throughout the design process”. They see it as a tripartite methodology consisting of con-ceptual, empirical and technological investigations. These are discussed further on fol-lowing sub-chapters. All three are iterative processes, affecting each other during the course of the research. Essential to the practice of VSD is identifying stakeholders, de-fined as users of the system and indirect-stakeholders, dede-fined as people affected by the new system, researching what kind of values all of them hold and how the actual tech-nological design can then take into consideration these values (Friedman et al. 2008).
There are eight central unique features in VSD according to Friedman et al. (2008: 85–
86). Firstly, VSD attempts to influence the design of technology early in and throughout the design process. Secondly, VSD is implementable in other arenas besides the
work-place. Thirdly, VSD contributes a unique tripartite methodology which is applied itera-tively and integraitera-tively. Fourthly, VSD incorporates all values, especially those with moral import. Fifthly, VSD distinguishes between usability and human values with ethi-cal import. Sixthly, VSD identifies and analyses two sets of stakeholders, direct and direct. Seventhly, VSD is integrational theory and values are not viewed either as in-scribed into technology nor simply as transmitted by social forces. Eightly, VSD is grounded on the proposition that “certain values are universally held, although how such values play out in a particular culture at a particular point in time can vary considerably”
(Friedman et al. 2008:86). (Friedman et al. 2008: 85–86).
In the center of the VSD process are the values. Friedman et al. (2008: 70–71) explain their definition of value being a broader term, referring to what person or group consider important in value, which is based on the Oxford English Dictionary definition. They acknowledge the problematics and variation of the relation of values and ethics, and ulti-mately they depend on the distinction between fact and value, where facts do not logically entail value. “Is does not imply ought” Friedman et al. (2008: 71) which is known as the naturalistic fallacy. Further, Friedman et al. (2008: 71) continue “values cannot be moti-vated only by an empirical account of the external world, but depend substantively on the interests and desires of human beings within a cultural milieu”. Values in the context of VSD can be described as “what a person or group of people consider important in life”
(Friedman, Kahn, Borning & Huldtgren 2013).
3.1 Investigation types in Value Sensitive Design
Friedman et al. (2008: 71–72) describe the application of the three types of investigations in different research projects comparable to paintings. In paintings created by various authors, different techniques are applied with a multitude of ways to form a whole, which is more than the sum of the parts, and still dissimilar to another painting. “The diverse techniques are employed on top of the other, repeatedly, and in response to what has been laid down earlier” as Friedman et al. (2008: 71–72) describe it. Next, these investigations are discussed further.
3.1.1 Conceptual Investigations
Conceptual investigations in VSD consist of finding out the direct and indirect stakehold-ers, how they relate to the system and how they are affected by it, what kind of values are implicated and how the design decisions and trade-offs between competing values should be handled. Additionally, Friedman et al. (2008) see that by conceptualizing of specific values carefully can fundamental issues related to the project be found and identified, which in turn can provide a basis for comparing results between different research teams.
(Friedman et al. 2008: 72)
Friedman et al. (2008: 87) define direct stakeholders as those, “who interact directly with the technology or technology’s output” and indirect as those, “who are also impacted by the system, though they never interact directly with it”. Further, Friedman et al. (2008:
87–88) point out that it within both groups of stakeholders, several subgroups may exist and one individual may be part of more than one stakeholder group of a subgroup. Ac-cording to Friedman et al. (2008: 88), organizational power structure does not follow the division to direct or indirect stakeholders, so the effect of it needs to be carefully consid-ered.
After identifying stakeholders, Friedman et al. (2008: 88) suggest to identify benefits and harms for each stakeholder group. Friedman et al. (2008: 88) present three suggestions to attend to. Firstly, benefits and harms will vary for each indirect stakeholder and more complex system, the larger group of people it affects – consider the World Wide Web for example. Friedman et al. (2008: 88) suggest in such situations to give priority to indirect stakeholders who are strongly affected or to large groups that are somewhat affected.
Secondly, Friedman et al. (2008: 88) see the necessity to attend to the issues of technical, cognitive and physical competency. Interests of such groups should be attended during the design process by representatives or advocates. Thirdly, they suggest personas as an investigation tool for the benefits and harms of each stakeholder group. Friedman et al.
(2008: 88) point out that with using personas one has to be careful not to reduce them into stereotypes and that in VSD one persona can be a member of several stakeholder groups.
(Friedman et al. 2008: 88).
Once benefits and harms to each stakeholder group are identified, these should be mapped to corresponding values (Friedman et al. 2008: 88–89). Friedman et al. (2008) note that mapping can be relatively straightforward but it can also be less direct and multifaceted.
They cite an example of mood improvement, which benefit can potentially implicate cre-ativity, productivity and physical welfare in addition to the psychological welfare.
Once the key values are identified, a conceptual investigation of each should be per-formed with the aid of relevant literature according to Friedman et al. (2008). Friedman et al. (2008: 89) point out that “philosophical ontological literature can help provide cri-teria for what value is (cursive added)” and help in the following empirical investigations.
Potential value conflicts should be examined next after the values have been defined.
Friedman et al. (2008: 89) see value conflicts more as restrictions on the design space instead of choosing one over another, even though often supporting value might hinder support of another. (Friedman et al. 2008: 89).
3.1.2 Empirical investigations
Friedman et al. (2008: 72) recognize the limitations of conceptual investigations and see that information provided by empirical investigations targeting the human context of the technological artifact is critical for many analyses. Secondly, they see the value of the empirical investigations regarding the evaluation of the success of the design. With em-pirical investigations, Friedman et al. (2008: 73) suggest researching for example how stakeholders apprehend individual values in the interactive context, how they prioritize design trade-offs between competitive values and prioritization of individual values and usability considerations. Additionally, Friedman et al. (2008: 73) recognize that techno-logical artifact has an effect on organizations as well as single stakeholders, organiza-tional value considerations affecting the design process can also be examined, for exam-ple, organizations’ motivations, methods of training and dissemination, reward structures, and economic incentives. (Friedman et al. 2008: 72–73).
According to Friedman et al. (2008: 72), empirical investigations can be applied to any human activity that can be observed, measured or documented. Therefore, they suggest that suitable methods consist of all quantitative and qualitative methods available in social science research, including for example observations, interviews, surveys, experimental manipulations, collection of relevant documents and measurement of user behavior and human psychology.
3.1.3 Technological investigations
VSD proposes that technology itself, by the properties of technology, provides different value suitabilities and thus supports some values and activities based on those values more readily than others (Friedman et al. 2008: 73). First of the two possible forms of techno-logical investigation in VSD examines this. In this form of technotechno-logical investigation is researched how the existing technology supports or hinders certain values, what kind of design trade-offs between values exists. The second form of technological investigation, implemented in this thesis, takes a different approach and it is considered with design and development of technology from a value perspective – how to design technology to sup-port the values identified in the conceptual investigation. Friedman et al. (2008: 73) note that technological investigations may appear similar to empirical investigations, but they differ by their unit of analysis. The technological investigation is concerned with the tech-nology while empirical investigations are concerned with the social units that are affected by technology. (Friedman et al. 2008: 73).
3.2 Critique of Value Sensitive Design
One criticism of VSD is directed at the definition presented. Mander-Huits (2011: 279–
280) claims that exactly what happens with VSD framework, a conflation of facts and values if values are “taken as the normative input for the VSD of a technology”. Further, Mander-Huits (2011: 280) sees that Friedman et al. (2008) claim of values “depending substantively on the interests and desires of human beings within cultural milieu” actually implies a sociological conception of values rather than ethical one. Jacobs & Huldtgren (2018) proposes that to avoid this naturalistic fallacy an ethical theory should guide the examination of values to form the normative input for the VSD analysis. They see that ethical theory could provide arguments for value prioritization and for the trade-offs that eventually raise in system design and propose that especially mid-level ethical theories are well suited in the VSD process. Mander-Huits (2011: 282–283) also points out the need for an ethical theory for exactly these mentioned considerations.
Friedman et al. (2008) proposal that some values are universally held and can thus provide normative direction is recognized also by Borning & Muller (2012) as problematic, and
their suggestion is in the instances of applying VSD to use qualifying prescriptive state-ments (if we want to support x, then we should do y) and in the instances of using VSD to be clear about the position of the researchers and their commitments (Borning & Muller 2012: 1125–1127). Related is their suggestion to provide cultural and viewpoint context for the typical list of values presented in VSD papers (Borning & Muller 2012: 1125).
Additionally, they do not see enough voice of the participants in the publications of VSD.
Borning & Muller (2012) claim that there is overclaim of authority and knowledge when substituting voice of the researcher over the participants and see that there are value and fidelity in allowing the participants to speak for themselves (Borning & Muller 2012:
1125). Lastly, they recommend making more salient the voice of the researcher when writing about VSD research thus allowing the reader to see more clearly researchers own culture and assumptions (Borning & Muller 2012: 1126).
Partly additional criticism by Mander-Huits (2011) is concerned with identifying stake-holders. Especially she sees recognizing parties affected by more complex technologies increasingly difficult, especially so when considering in-direct stakeholders (Huits 2011: 277–278). Yoo (2018) suggest a nascent method for this. Lastly, Mander-Huits (2011) points out that empirical methods employed in VSD to gather the stake-holder values need a lot of consideration (Mander-Huits 2011: 278–279). Essentially her critique is based to the difficulty of stakeholders correctly assessing the new technologies, the values stakeholders communicate could be experienced and interpreted differently what they intended (thus resulting in different norms and actions than actually implied) and the fact that values change. Mander-Huits (2011: 279) recommends that the method used for value elicitation would be deliberative than taking a form of a survey.